Yes, the Bill of Rights are amendments to the constitution, but they amend our fundamental rights. Therefore, they make up our fundamental rights. Yes, amendments are dependent on the time they were written in, but now is an ideal time to create an amendment that guarantees our bill of rights. Yes, an amendment can be voted off. If the people want to add an amendment, so it shall be done. If they wan to remove an amendment, so it shall be done. That is the point of the Constitution. It is for the people. To not add an amendment because of the fact that it can be taken off is contrary to the purpose of the Constitution.
I believe there should be an amendment created that guarantees our Bill of Rights. It would serve as a useful clarification to our guarantee of fundamental rights.
Would you rather have your freedom to question and act as you wish within all logical boundaries guaranteed, or risk losing such rights.? I don't think I should need to explain it any further, because people deserve their rights. It's really that simple. I'm not naive or anything, just not a stone cold cynic.
As is now our basic constitutional rights are in the center for being attacked. As of now they could be voted away. Anyone watch 1984? Pretty grim. Basically the people put themselves in that situation. It's a sad day when people trade their freedom for more security. They will get neither.
The amendments are, yes, amendments. But they are amendments to our fundamental rights. They are made to be guaranteed. However, an amendment to guarantee our fundamental rights would serve as a useful clarification to said fundamental rights. Yes, amendments are dependent on the time they are written, but now is an ideal time to have an amendment created that guarantees our rights. Yes, popular vote can simply remove the amendments, but that's because the amendments are for the people. If the people wish to add an amendment, so it shall be done. If they want to remove an amendment, so it shall be done. That is the point of the constitution. To not add an amendment because of the fact that it can be voted off is contradictory to the purpose of the constitution in the first place.
I hold a firm belief in protecting our own rights, therefore I would agree on any type of movement that would protect my firm belief in protecting our own rights. Hence, it is another firm belief of mine that we each have the right to protect our right in protecting our right to protect our own rights. My point is, we shouldn't just create an amendment that guarantees the existence of the Bill of Rights to ensure it's impossible to vote away our fundamental rights; we should also create an amendment that guarantees the existence of the amendment that guarantees the existence of the Bill of Rights to ensure it's impossible to vote away our fundamental rights, which are in themselves fundamental to the protection of our already fundamental rights. In short, we need the impossible to become a very possible impossibility.
The Bill of Rights is a list of Amendments made to the constitution because the constitution, at the time it was written, still held women as property and free speech as unnecessary. The amendments were added to the constitution's "fundamental rights" list because it only gave fundamental rights to men and counted black people as one-third of a human being. Part of what makes the constitution workable is our ability to alter it given a change of times or situation, to amend it in such a way that changes it from a "living document" to something set in stone defeats the purpose entirely.
If an amendment existed that guaranteed the existence of the Bill of Rights, this amendment would itself be subject to overturning by later votes. Popular support sufficient to vote away the Bill of Rights would also be sufficient to vote away an amendment protecting these amendments. That's how amendments work, so the only guaranteed protection for the Bill of Rights would be an infinite regress of amendments protecting the existence of other amendments.
Such an amendment would be just as easy to overturn as any other amendment (Prohibition) or part of the constitution (anything to euphemize slavery). Change is not easy, and there's not currently a large enough conspiracy among federal and state legislators to back anything that could overturn our freedoms that really matter (at least not without risk of getting tremendously voted out).
In most aspects of life, growing and changing through life is neassecary and good which is what I believe goes for the Bill of RIghts too.
THis country has needed different things at different times and being able to alter and improve the Bill of RIghts I belive is a good idea.
When people make descions most times in life, they have a right to change their mind and make something different for what might be better for them later on or what they want later on
on a small scale, people change their hair styles and colors all the time and then change it again, they are all different but not one is better than the other and the Bill of RIghts is that on a bigger scale. THis country has been growing and changing from day one. SOme things havfe worked and some haven't and leaving options open to change and growth is essential I believe for this country to be the best it has been and can be